Form Hindustan
- Thread starter arlindos
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Best or easiest. The best would be one of the sultanates like Bengal because if you take humanist with them this stacks with the NI's giving them amazing stability and never having to convert anything. The easiest is probably Vijay they are large with plenty of BT and lots of smaller nations to conquer.
- 3
- 1
I'm having a really fun game as Bengal going for the Bengal Tiger achievement and will hopefully grab the Sun never sets... one as Hindustan too.
Orissa also has very good starting ruler and achievement. Regarding easy I would say that Malwa, Jaunpur and Bahmani are good starting points as well. I would say it all depends or what other things you want and what do you want from NI (IIRC Jaunpur has some infantry combat ability and all muslims have religious unity).
Re Aries advice. Never converting might sounds fine, but wrong religion gives you maluses. It might be better to convert to hindu and with 150% religious unity conquer muslims.
Re Aries advice. Never converting might sounds fine, but wrong religion gives you maluses. It might be better to convert to hindu and with 150% religious unity conquer muslims.
Jharkhand has the best flag. There's a catch though: it can't form Hindustan unless culture shifted. Oddly, there is no version of the decision for Central Indian culture group.
bengal should be nice becouse i want expand out of india in earlys 1550 ... but will be harder then vijay
Thats a common misconception. In fact, when you have +3 tolerance you dont loose any unity at all.
- 1
- 1
With Muslim Hindu NIs unity bonus you can have quite high number of wrong religion provinces without losing unity anyway. But
I actually meant manpower and tax maluses. And having true faith (with religious etc) you can score better -unrest than with any possible +heathen tolerance (so indirectly there is unrest malus as well).
I did it with Jaunpur (it was my first time in India). I had fun and I can't say it was hard.
If you can get over the hard start, Nepal's ideas are pretty good (glorious +1 leader siege!), having discipline and infantry combat ability and whatnot.
- 1
The true faith tolerance with religious is offset by max tolerance plus the -2 unrest in humanist. Any humanist with max tolerance can easily go over 100 OE and not suffer rebellions even on newly conquered provinces. You also dont need to increase autonomy on newly conquered which equals higher income sooner allowing you to snowball faster.
I've been doing it with Gujarat, I loved their ideas and they are surrounded by targets that can be gobbled up decently fast to create a more impressive presence in India.
Is there a coherent reason for that? Was it a deliberate design decision, or an oversight they've never gotten around to fixing?
- 1
They are marginally better than an average Indian nation's, and you start small (not so bad) and with among the worst kings in the game in a not-western tech group (pretty bad).
Playable but not what I'd call ideal, I like the more-unique benefits of the Indian sultanates more, or one of the achievement guys like Bengal or Orissa, but Nepal does have that 10% morale advantage I guess.
Best as in easiest would be either Vijay or Bahmanis or Bengal. All 3 of them have decent ideas and a ton of income. Vijay has most BT at start, Bahmanis has gold and Bengal trade. Bahmanis has some really nice 10% morale through Shia though which is massive early on.
Ah and please not again the discussion about Nepali ideas.
Ah and please not again the discussion about Nepali ideas.
Nepal is the only Indian nation with discipline and morale and infantry CA and manpower recovery speed and are the only nation in the game with +1 leader siege. Their only 'weak' NI is fort defense.
Pick any other Indian start, all of them have at least two or three junk NIs. The only marginal thing about Nepal is their piss poor start.
I don't think there is any compelling reason. Most probably an oversight they just didn't care about.
Last edited:
I'd still rather have sultanate, Mughal, or Bengali/Bahmani ideas. Nepal gets lots of small bonuses to combat. Siege is nice but you can only run 1-3 generals so it'll speed up a carpet via finish + reinforce other sieges but not tremendously (and won't speed up assaults whatsoever). Leader fire is +2 pips for combat purposes basically, and Rajput gets that/discipline/combat ability/manpower recoverty too, just not morale.
For SP purposes, I'd prefer the easy heathen tolerance though. For MP purposes, I'd prefer a start position that isn't complete trash in terms of progression speed. That leaves Nepal a pretty-tough roleplay start, especially considering the limited access to alliances and that your poor tech group means it'll be many years until you see all those military benefits, 100+ for quite a few of them.
Nepal is more a challenge game with poor man's combat stat distribution that won't let you mop the floor while massively outnumbered but will help considerably. For the OP's very general question, they don't even make the top 10 nations that can begin the game able to form Hindustan (Vijay, Malwa, Bahmanis, Bengal, Jaunpur, Orissa, Gujurat, Mewar, Delhi, even Sind have more favorable positions). It's easier than crap like Kangra, Garjat, Khandesh, Jangladesh, Nagaur, and Jaisalmer though. Jangladesh is probably the worst of the bunch.